Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-220, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. My remarks today will focus on the immigration implications of the bill and what I believe is at stake for all of us as Canadians.
Before I turn to the substance of the legislation, I want to say something that I believe deeply and that I know the vast majority of Canadians share. We are a nation of immigrants. From the very earliest days of Confederation, people have come to the country from every corner of the world, bringing with them their talents, their traditions, their determination and their dreams. They have built our cities. They have staffed our hospitals and our schools. They have started businesses that employ our neighbours. They have served in our armed forces. They have enriched our culture, strengthened our economy and made us who we are.
Canada is the envy of the world, and that is not by accident. It is because of the extraordinary diversity of the people who call this country home. Our strength has always come from our differences, from our willingness to welcome those who seek a better life and to stand together across lines of language, faith and heritage.
This is the Canadian story, and it is one we should tell with pride every single day. In my riding of Davenport, I see the story lived out in real time. I represent one of the most diverse communities in this country. Families from Portugal, from Latin America, from the Caribbean, from Southeast Asia and from across Africa and Europe have built a vibrant, thriving neighbourhood. They volunteer in our schools, care for our elderly and show up for each other. They are the backbone of our community, and I am honoured to stand here on their behalf.
When I talk to newcomers in Davenport, I hear the same thing over and over. They chose Canada because of what this country stands for: fairness, opportunity and the rule of law. They came here to contribute, to raise their families in safety and to be part of something bigger than themselves. That is the promise of this country, and it is a promise we must honour. Every generation of newcomers has made Canada stronger, more innovative and more resilient, and the generation arriving today is no different.
Let me be unequivocal. Anyone in the process of becoming a Canadian, whether they are an asylum seeker, a temporary worker, an international student or in any other immigration stream, who commits a serious crime should face the full consequences of the law, including deportation, period, with zero tolerance. Committing serious crimes while enjoying the privilege of being in Canada is unacceptable, and it will not be tolerated.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already provides for exactly that. It defines serious criminality. It provides for inadmissible findings, deportation orders and, in many cases, a permanent ban on returning to Canada. The framework is robust, and it is enforced.
The question before us is not whether criminals should face consequences. They absolutely should, and they do. The question is whether Bill C-220 actually makes Canadians safer or our system fairer. The answer is no.
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, when a permanent resident or foreign national is sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment, that constitutes serious criminality. They lose the right to appeal their deportation order. For lesser offences, the immigration appeal division can examine factors such as length of time in Canada and the best interests of children.
The law is clear. Serious offences mean serious consequences. Bill C-220 would prohibit judges from even being aware of these consequences when determining a fit sentence. It would force a one-size-fits-all approach, asking courts to ignore the fact that a sentence of six months and a day carries a life-altering, drastically different penalty from a sentence of six months.
Let me correct the misconception. When a judge considers immigration consequences, the offender can still be found inadmissible for serious criminality. They are still subject to a deportation order. There is no free pass in marginal cases. The individual retains the right to argue their case before the Immigration and Refugee Board, an expert, independent tribunal that weighs public safety against individual consequences.
In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada, under a Conservative government, unanimously recognized in R v. Pham that immigration consequences are a legitimate factor in crafting a fit sentence. The court was explicit: A sentence must always remain proportionate to the crime and the offender's responsibility. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill was a cabinet minister when that decision was issued. The Conservatives had two full years to legislate on this if they believed there was a problem. They did not. A decade later, the Conservatives brought forward a bill that ignores the jurisprudence, the evidence and the realities of both the courts and the immigration system.
The opposition members argue that this creates a two-tier justice system. I would argue exactly the opposite. The punishment is already two-tiered. A non-citizen can also face a second and far more severe consequence that a citizen does not: deportation, permanent removal from their family and the only country that many of them may have ever known. Allowing judges to consider that reality is not special treatment. It is what ensures that the total consequence is proportionate.
We have heard examples from members opposite. The Crown already has the ability to appeal any sentence it believes is unfit. Appellate courts can and do intervene. There is no evidence of courts systematically reducing sentences inappropriately. Due process is not a loophole. It is what ensures that enforcement decisions are lawful, credible and sustainable. Bill C-220 would create a disconnect between two statutes that Parliament has designed to work together.
Let me close where I began. Canada's greatness lies in the people who have come here and chosen to build a life in this country. We owe it to them and to every Canadian to maintain a system that is fair, principled and effective. We enforce the law firmly against those who break it, but we must also reject legislation that is built on rhetoric rather than evidence, that would undermine judicial independence and that would make our system less fair without making anyone safer.
On this side of the House, we believe in an immigration system that reflects who we are: a generous, law-abiding, diverse nation that holds people accountable and treats them with fairness. Bill C-220 would not advance that vision. The government cannot support this bill.